Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : AY 2015-16 assessment under Section 153C held time-barred. Judicial rulings confirm six-year limit runs from handing over of seize...
Income Tax : Learn why a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is legally invalid under Section 153C of the Income Tax A...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that an unsigned agreement without corroboration cannot be treated as incriminating material. Proceedings under ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted additions where the Revenue failed to prove actual cash transactions. It emphasized that suspicion and assump...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 147 was invalid where it was based on third-party search material. It ruled that Se...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The Court held that a 21-month delay in recording the satisfaction note violates the requirement of immediacy. It ruled that such ...
Income Tax : Central Government has decided to extend the time limits to 30th June, 2021 in the following cases where the time limit was earlie...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
Addition under Section 68 could not be sustained where assessee has established the genuineness of a Non-banking financial company (NBFC) investor, and the AO failed to rebut such evidence or trace any money trail linking the assessee to the invested funds.
ITAT held that failure to record how seized material impacts taxable income invalidates proceedings. All assessments were quashed due to defective satisfaction note.
The Court examined whether reassessment based on search could extend beyond statutory timelines. It held that the notice for AY 2015–16 was issued beyond the permissible ten-year period. The ruling confirms that limitation provisions must be strictly followed.
The case involved reassessment triggered by a search conducted in 2022. The Court ruled that reopening beyond the 10-year statutory limit is not permissible.
The issue was whether Section 153C could apply when the assessees own premises were searched. The tribunal held that such a person is a searched person, making Section 153A applicable instead. Consequently, assessments under Section 153C were quashed for multiple years.
The tribunal ruled that unverified claims of cash payments based on third-party material cannot justify tax additions. It emphasized that evidence must directly implicate the taxpayer.
The issue was validity of reopening beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held the notice issued after the prescribed time was invalid, and quashed the entire reassessment.
The tribunal reversed the CIT(A)’s decision for wrongly quashing assessment due to lack of notice under Section 143(2). It held that Section 263 proceedings are a continuation of original assessment.
The case addressed whether a special audit can be ordered without establishing complexity or defects in accounts. The Court examined whether mechanical invocation of Section 142(2A) without proper justification is legally sustainable.
The Court ruled that the reassessment notice was invalid as it exceeded the statutory 10-year limit under Section 153A. It clarified that the search year must be included in computing the extended limitation period.
